1. SMAP Workshop #5 Risk Assessment Section Safety & Enforcement Division January 25, 2016

2. Safety and Emergency Information In the event of an emergency, please proceed calmly out the exits. The Temporary Evacuation Location has been relocated to the Civic Center Plaza. It is located on the other side of City Hall. Exit the building at Van Ness and McAlister streets and walk past City Hall. 2

3. 3 Crude Oil, Ethanol Railroad Shipments Update and Safety Activity Paul King, PhD Deputy Director, Office of Rail Safety Safety and Enforcement Division California Public Utilities Commission February 26, 2015

4. Practical Information Call in information: Phone line: 1-866-859-2737 Participant code: 1682922 WebEx: https://van.webex.com/van/j.php?MTI D=mb71976cd3e3c078de434cc9dbcf af442 https://van.webex.com/van/j.php?MTI D=mb71976cd3e3c078de434cc9dbcf af442 Meeting Number: 748 002 336 Meeting Password: sMA.1505 WiFi Access: SSID: cpucguest User: guest Password: cpuc123115 Restrooms: out the Auditorium doors and down the far end of the hallway. 4

5. Workshop #5 Agenda PresentersTopicTime SED Introduction 10:00 - 10:10 Tom Long, TURN Evelyn Kahl, EPUC/Indicated Shippers Charles Feinstein and Jonathan Lesser, experts for TURN and EPUC/IS What good safety risk management looks like; How to improve utility safety risk management models and utility accountability; S-MAP Road Map 10:10 - 12:00 Lunch12:00 - 1:00 TURN and EPUC/Indicated ShippersContinued Discussion and Q/A1:00 - 2:00 SEDSet Up Working Group on Reporting2:00 – 2:30 Break2:30 - 2:45 Joseph Mitchell, Mussey Grade Road Alliance (MGRA) MGRA Proposal and Presentation and Q/A: Commonality of utility wildfire risk and metrics necessary to reduce uncertainty 2:45 - 3:15 5

6. Workshop #5 Objectives The purpose of this workshop is to hear: Suggestions from parties to improve utility risk management models Suggestions from parties to improve utility accountability in risk assessment and mitigation, including metrics Suggestions from parties for a road map forward for the SMAP proceeding Discussion of the SMAP proceeding, utility risk assessment, and risk mitigation, and To establish the working group to help fulfill the requirements of Scoping Memo Questions 14) and 15) pertaining to “Reporting.” 6

7. Working Group on Reporting Scoping Memo Questions 14 and 15 14. What direction can and should be provided to the utilities for the structure and detail of the two accountability reports required by D.14-12-025: the risk mitigation accountability report and risk spending accountability report? 15. What direction can and should be provided to the utilities regarding developing, tracking, and reporting a set of performance metrics that are designed to measure the safety improvements achieved by the utilities? a.What is the status of data collection and how can it be improved over time? b.What performance metrics should be developed for the first SMAP and/or second SMAP? 7

8. Working Group on Metrics for Reporting: Questions Who will join this group? What will this group produce? –A document? A list of metrics? A process for going forward… What are the next steps for this group? –An organizing call… on February 3 rd ? February 10 th ? –A schedule of three or four calls on [Wednesdays]? 8 Conference call every other week through February and March 3 or 4 total Provide results in April 2016

9. Principles for Metrics, and Questions What metrics will get results for safety? What metrics will move in response to budgets for safety? Organize metrics by district or region to show differences? Include some of the metrics in RAMP filings? Separate incentive program metrics from safety dashboard metrics from financial metrics. Address and define near misses – an issue for the working group. 9

10. Classifications of Metrics Asset condition based vs. performance based vs. compliance based Leading vs. lagging Geographic vs. temporal Public safety vs. contractor safety Safety vs. reliability 10

11. Canadian Energy Board: “cultural threats” section of its Safety Culture statement –Extended time lapse exists between reports of safety concerns and their resolution –Are maintenance activities not prioritized and executed as planned? –Are leaders less strict about adherence to procedures when work falls behind schedule? –Is proactive maintenance of assets overdue? Safety Culture Metric –Examples: Current utility survey programs, Contra Costa Industrial Safety Ordinance, Climate Assessment Survey System, DuPont Safety Perception Survey System 11 Examples of Metrics to Consider

12. New York State –Leak-Prone Pipe Removal –Leak Management –Damage Prevention Overall damages per 1,000 one-call tickets Damages due to Mismarks per 1,000 one-call tickets Damages due to Company and Contractors per 1,000 one- call tickets –Gas safety violations metric 12 Examples of Metrics to Consider

13. Federal Regulatory Statistics –Leak management Total leaks repaired per mile, total leaks per mile, total leaks outstanding per mile –Damage Prevention Program Pipeline damages per 1000 locate tickets Short-Term Incentive Plan Metrics –T&D Wires Down –Gas In-Line Inspection and Upgrade Index –Gas Dig-ins Reduction –Gas Emergency Response –Lost Workday Case Rate 13

14. Safety Dashboard – Employee, Contractor, Public, and Environmental Safety –Serious injuries and fatalities (distinguished from OSHA recordables, and including the public –All incidents involving utility facilities & operations (not limited to electrical contact or gas release) –Lost workday case rate –Lost workday case count –OSHA injury rate –Company timeliness of reporting work-related injuries/incidents –Near hits reported (define: ) –Contractor lost workday case rate –Employee and Contractor DART rate (days away or restricted from work) (OSHA) –Contractor Total Recordable Incident Rate (OSHA) –Contractor lost workday case rate 14 Examples of Metrics to Consider

15. Safety Dashboard – Public Safety –T&D wires down (Also Federal) –Gas dig-In reductions (Also Federal) –Gas emergency response –Shut in the gas average time –Network system equipment and primary cable failures –Gas leak repair performance –Gas overpressure events 15 Examples of Metrics to Consider

16. SED investigations –Notices of violation and corrective action plans –Citations –Adjudicatory CPUC investigation proceedings –Records audits and facilities inspections –Investigations of incidents –CPUC reportable and non-reportable incidents 16 Examples of Metrics to Consider

17. Possible New Metrics (brainstorm) What are the overall points of failure for safety incidents –San Bruno = record keeping failure + … –Proactive Maintenance? When there are multiple points of failure, how do they interact and how do we measure the interactions? What is the crossover between mitigation and this kind of investigation? What is the safeguard aspect of safety? How can you categorize types of failure? –Record keeping –Contractors hit live lines –Corrosion –More… 17

18. Next Steps 18 SED issues Draft Evaluation ReportFebruary 2016 Opening Comments on SED ReportTo Be Determined Reply Comments on SED ReportTo Be Determined Proposed Decision issuedMay 2016 Interim Decision Adopted by CommissionJune 2016 Second Phase First SMAP Scoping Memo (tentative)July 2016 Final Decision IssuedTo Be Determined Subsequent filing of SMAP applicationsEvery Three Years

19. 19 Thank You For Additional Information: www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/RiskAssessment.htm